Wednesday, January 16, 2013

Paper finds the Sun controls climate & 'gives no support to theory of anthropogenic climate change'

A paper published in the Journal of Geophysical Research finds temperatures in the troposphere behave similarly to changes in solar activity over short timescales and a "cumulative negative [not positive as claimed by climate alarmists] feedback in the Earth climate system governing the tropospheric variability during the last 22 years." According to the paper, "The result emphasizes a dominating role of the solar irradiance variability in variations of the tropospheric temperature and gives no support to the theory of anthropogenic climate change," and "Increasing concentration of greenhouse gases in the Earth atmosphere appeared to produce too weak forcing in order to dominate in the Earth climate system."

On nonstationarity and antipersistency in global temperature seriesO. KarnerAbstract: Statistical analysis is carried out for satellite-based global daily tropospheric and stratospheric temperature anomaly and solar irradiance data sets. Behavior of the series appears to be nonstationary with stationary daily increments. Estimating long-range dependence between the increments reveals a remarkable difference between the two temperature series. Global average tropospheric temperature anomaly behaves similarly to the solar irradiance anomaly. Their daily increments show antipersistency for scales longer than 2 months. The property points at a cumulative negative feedback in the Earth climate system governing the tropospheric variability during the last 22 years. The result emphasizes a dominating role of the solar irradiance variability in variations of the tropospheric temperature and gives no support to the theory of anthropogenic climate change. The global average stratospheric temperature anomaly proceeds like a 1-dim random walk at least up to 11 years, allowing good presentation by means of the autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) models for monthly series.

From the paper:The revealed antipersistence in the lower tropospheric temperature increments does not support the science of global warming developed by IPCC [1996]. Negative long-range correlation of the increments during last 22 years means that negative feedback has been dominating in the Earth climate system during that period. The result is opposite to suggestion of Mitchell [1989] about domination of a positive cumulative feedback after a forced temperature change. Dominating negative feedback also shows that the period for CO2 induced climate change has not started during the last 22 years. Increasing concentration of greenhouse gases in the Earth atmosphere appeared to produce too weak forcing in order to dominate in the Earth climate system. Estimate of the adjusted radiative forcing due to changes in the concentrations of the so-called greenhouse gases since preindustrial times is 2.45 Wm- 2 [IPCC, 1996]. If the increase was during 15 years, its annual increment (0.16 Wm- 2) would be comparable to standard deviation of the daily increment of solar forcing at the top of the atmosphere (0.18 Wm- 2). The observed global warming in surface air temperature series [Jones et al., 1999] is more likely produced due to overall nonstationary variability of the Earth climate system under anti-persistent solar forcing.

Considering that the sun is the main source of heat on earth and CO2 only holds a fraction of that back from escaping, then CO2 cannot be a greater factor than the sun contrary to AGW pseudo-scientists and fear-mongers.

Basic maths says that nothing can back-radiate heat to 'further' warm the surface, as when the IR has radiated away from the surface (i.e. lost from it) and *if* a fraction is radiated back, the net is -1 + 0.x (not +1 + 0.x). Hypothesis busted in that one small equation!

I have read them all, they are great articles and very approachable. They should be compulsory reading for every climate scientist, environmentalist, teacher, churchman and politician (everyone really who 'believes' in CAGW). I checked that simple "-1 + 0.x" equation with Joe, who agrees, which seems to be an infinite amount more checking than many 'believers' have done. It's such a simple equation than no one can fail to understand it, although I've had one or two in other article comments where I've posted it who seemingly are so wedded to CAGW belief that they reply and attack me as 'not on this planet', but don't provide any reasoned rebuttal or alternative.